PEOPLE V RICOHERMOSO L – 30527 – 28 | March 29, 1974 |

PEOPLE V RICOHERMOSO

L – 30527 – 28 | March 29, 1974 | J. Aquino

 

Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury 

 

Facts:

 

Geminiano de Leon, together with his common-law wife, son Marianito de Leon and one Rizal Rosales, chanced upon Pio Ricohermoso. Owning a parcel of land, which Ricohermoso cultivated as kaingin, Geminiano asked about his share of palay harvest and added that she should be allowed to taste the palay harvested from his land. Ricohermoso said Geminiano could collect the palay anytime.

Upon returning from his trip to Barrio Bagobasin, Geminiano dropped by Ricohermoso’s house and asked him about the palay, to which the latter answered defiantly that he will not give him the palay, whatever happens. Geminiano remonstrated and that point (as if by prearrangement), Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo, while his father-in-law Severo Padernal got an axe, and attacked Geminiano. At the same time and place, Ricohermoso’s brother-in-law Juan Padernal suddenly embraced Marianito. They grappled and rolled down the hill, at which point Marianito passed out. When he regained consciousness, he discovered that the rifle he carried beforehand was gone and that his father was mortally wounded.

The defendants shifted the responsibility of killing in their version of the case.

 

Issue:

W/N appellant Juan Padernal can invoke the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury

 

Held:

No. Juan Padernal’s reliance on the justifying circumstance is erroneous because his act in preventing Marianito from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal, the aggressors in this case, was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano de Leon without any risk to the assailants and not an act to prevent infliction of greater evil or injury. His intention was to forestall any interference in the assault.

Treachery was also appreciated in the case. The trial court convicted the appellants with lesiones leves, from an attempted murder charge with respect to Marianito de Leon.

Judgment as to Juan Padernal affirmed.

(Note: Severo Padernal withdrew his appeal, thus, in effect, accepted the prosecution’s version of the case and trial court’s finding of guilt.)

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,

V erba legis , that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their  ordinary meaning  except where technical terms are employed. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003. http://lapispapelatereyser.blogspot.com/2012/10/case-digest_9528.html FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)."   On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." The complaint ...
Read more